Unified Gravity Corp: New Website, Open for "serious" replications

1st Official Post
    • Official Post

    The Unified Gravity Corporation has set up a new, very well professional looking website:


    http://unifiedgravity.com/


    Money quote:

    Quote from Unified Gravity Corporation

    Open for peer-review


    We are fully aware our work cannot be explained by the current state of mainstream physics. Despite this, we were able to reproduce positive results in labs at the University of Louisiana, Lafayette and the University of North Texas with further experiments at our Morgan Hill laboratory. Because our fusion technology is patent pending, we are open for peer-review of our experimental tests. We encourage universities, institutions, and companies to explore and reproduce our results as we believe our technology holds the key to unlocking a paradigm shift in the way we create energy.


    We are happy to setup meetings with those who are serious about replication assistance of our fusion process

    I think that their technology is real, but in the not too distant past they refused interview requests and refused to answer questions. I hope this is a real move towards openness. Or they might be all talk like BLP and then threaten to sue folks who replicate in a not for profit manner.

    Their description of cold fusion is also incorrect.


    My thinking is that the Rossi Effect is broken down into at least two parts. In the first, nickel and hydrogen react with each other (with maybe a few H-H reactions too). These reactions emit particles (maybe protons) that then interact with the lithium in the reactor to produce additional excess heat. Me356 has claimed to have witnessed particle emissions from Ni-H remotely causing a chunk of lithium to grow white hot. In another post, he claims a chunk of lithium appeared to be "floating" in nickel powder and being constant bombarded by particles.


    Basically, I think the second half of the "Rossi Effect" is what Unified Gravity is doing. Rossi would have a huge advantage, because he wouldn't need a large, complicated device. His nickel powder grains are his particle accelerators.

    • Official Post
    Quote from MrSelfSustain

    think that their technology is real, but in the not too distant past they refused interview requests and refused to answer questions. I hope this is a real move towards openness. Or they might be all talk like BLP and then threaten to sue folks who replicate in a not for profit manner.


    The truth may be simpler than an earnest desire to see replications. The usual shortage of cash means they have to play nicey nicey.

    There is a night and day difference between the disclosures of UGC v. the obfuscation in Rossi's "output". Read the Lipinski's 2014 WIPO application. 140 pp. There is so much detail one may be tempted to get distracted when reading through that application-- the most impressive results are toward the end. As usual, I suggest letting their theory stand on its own and simply go to the extensive empirical results that only begin some 20 pp into the document. The UGC / Lipinski disclosures are very detailed, as should be required in any serious patent application, as I understand it.

    Quote

    We are fully aware our work cannot be explained by the current state of mainstream physics. Despite this, we were able to reproduce positive results in labs at the University of Louisiana, Lafayette and the University of North Texas

    The staff listed on the web page has impressive backgrounds but the presentation of the page is, IMHO, quite Steornish or Rossiesque as is the above statement UNLESS those labs are specified, the researchers from those institutions are named and the materials, methods and results are described in detail somewhere.


    OK, I had a brief look at the extremely long paper here: http://www.unifiedgravity.com/…014189799-PAMPH-330-2.pdf


    I think this is the "money shot" to appropriate a suitable term from the pr0n industry:


    deleteme_united_gravity.jpg


    This is a most amazingly long document, IMO but I am not that familiar with patent apps so maybe it's not unusual. Also, it can't be searched or portions COPY/PASTE'd with my usual PDF browser app... That seems strange. But it does have the materials and methods and results... TONS of them. I was less clear on the involvement of the universities. It is of concern when people claiming wild success in some unusual area like LENR, name universities with the suggestion that the work is more reliable and credible when they are involved. I hope that this is not happening here but I can't tell. It's suspicious. But ???


    I have no way to evaluate the bulk of this patent app. Hope someone other than Axil does. Good luck. It will be a lot of work and take a lot of time.


    It is encouraging that they seek replication. Hope they get it.

    May I suggest simply reading and suspending judgement, rather than categorizing as "Steornish" or whatever other categorization is tempting. Best at this point to regard it as possible new information. The use of National accelerator (including a NASA one at Huntsville AL) facilities is not necessarily an effort to gain the cachet of the particular university that may house such a facility, but more likely an effort to avail themselves of the high level of instrumentation and to gain the more precisely selectable levels of proton beam energies reliably available at such facilities. There are also possible safety aspects more easily monitored at such accelerator facilities, since there may be other forms of radiation accompanying such reactions.


    It has been some time since the Lipinskis reportedly reproduced the necessary equipment in their own corporate laboratory near Palo Alto, CA. The Lipinski's have likely a fairly deep well of their own funding, BTW.


    Judging from the prejudicial comments made by Axil eg. "LENR is not fusion", it "Axil" may not be the entity best to judge anything relating to LENR or to judge the Lipinskis' efforts.... sorry to report. I suggest individuals go to the effort of reading the WIPO application themselves. (The 2014 WIPO application is the "amazingly long" document MY claims to refer to). It is quite detailed, appears to reveal nearly every detail involved in their very interesting findings. Again, regard the theoretical material on pages 12 through 20 as being only tangential, and perhaps irrelevant, to understanding their results. And by the way, the "300 keV" was their effort to reproduce the original proton to lithium results reported by Herb et al in Physical Review, 48, 118 (1935). The Lipinskis showed the same disappointing results at such high energies, in stark contrast to their much more productive results at much lower energies.


    Here is the link once again:

    http://www.unifiedgravity.com/…014189799-PAMPH-330-2.pdf

    141 pages as per my laser printer driver -- are you planning to read that, Longview? Better brew a lot of coffee. I explained why this seems somewhat "Steornish". I hope i am wrong. 16kW out for 72 hours with 1kW in is impressive if it's correct.

    I have read it, and some 2 years ago I reported here some of the details. I have just now reviewed some of the key points. I recall back then, the presumed precursor to THHnew warned that such results are subject to artifact.... and indeed that is possible. But now with disappointment I see his presumed successor recently wrongly assigning "300 keV" protons to the Lipinskis protocol.


    If people don't bother to even get the main points of a new technology, or its patent claims, then what attention should we pay to their blandishments concerning such technology?


    I assure everyone here that it is worth the read. It is not difficult reading, particularly if one skims over the unified gravity theory portion. And that is not to disparage their theory, it is just not required to understand the practical import of their results.


    http://www.unifiedgravity.com/…014189799-PAMPH-330-2.pdf

    Quote from maryyugo

    concern when people claiming wild success in some unusual area like LENR

    By the way, the Lipinskis explicitly DISclaim that their results have any connection to cold fusion and also deny any connection to hot fusion. This, I have mentioned, may be patent legalistic strategy, but nevertheless shows that their work stands quite independently of the CF and LENR work since 1989.

    It would seem that if this work had merit *and* was associated with universities (or even if not) there would be publication in the refereed literature by now. Also perhaps a more advanced version with even better results or at least replicated results.


    I am suspicious of people who publish long tomes but do not summarize them for investors and interested parties who are not necessarily experts in the field. It is not spoonfeeding but simply good sense to present your best result, like for example in the paragraph I copied above, in a brief but adequate format. Check sites which have unusual or novel but established high tech products and almost all will have a reasonable introduction by way of the web pages, including prominently placed references to the literature which supports their views. A glitzy web site which does not do this is what I meant by Steornish. Not yet Rossiish fortunately.

    Quote from Longview

    Not very close. That NASA report appears to involve photons (x-rays) acting on deuterated metals. Lipinski / UGC involves protons acting on lithium metal. But, I welcome corrective details that you Zeus may have?


    None here... I was just looking at both and they are almost entirely different. I thought NASA used a proton beam too.

    Quote from maryyugo

    people who publish long tomes but do not summarize them

    It seems you may be missing the nature of this 141 page document. It is a patent application! I assume you might have read some of those in your life (?) In this case it is a very detailed one, perhaps necessary in view of the possible immense significance of the technology. The great length is fortuitous for us, not an impediment.


    Most patent applications, and patents themselves are not considered to be in the scientific literature per se. It is the reason why a good search on technology in the literature is quite incomplete without also searching patent literature.

    Not what I said, Longview. I am drawing attention to the presumed association with universities and research centers yet the lack of publications. I also said that it makes sense on a technical web site, which is seeking credibility and investment, to have easily understood pages describing the *essentials* clearly and succinctly. Having a glib web site which says nothing and no documentation except an extremely long patent app is at best uninformative for most visitors.


    I have no problem with their detailed description of what they did and the results they got. I think it's commendable. And without a doubt, useful for other researchers and potential replicators. But it's too long for most people trying to get a simple grasp of what they did and it's too complex for non physicists, even if they understand science and some engineering. I guess I don't know to who they are appealing.


    I agree with your observations about complete searches. The problem with searching patents is that so many are just garbage.

    Sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 fusion device, particle spectrum. Despite the Lipinski's research is most generic case of cold fusion (which enabled me to understand its dominant mechanism) his experiments may be difficult to reproduce, because they do require to keep lithium surface very clean and molten just a few degrees above melting point, so that the subsurface crystalline layer gets preserved. Because during fusion a layer of hydride/deuteride is produced which blocks the further reaction a mechanism for cleaning surface must be developed. Also because the impacts of ions and fusion itself generate lotta heat the careful temperature control within thin film of lithium must be provided.


    Hc6J4Iy.gifrhaFMy0.gif

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.